Formation of the Autonomy Kick-Off Group

Authors: Thomas Hepner (@TenaciousTerrier) (Contributor / Methodologist) , Greg Docter (@gregdocter) (Set Labs)

Background: Wednesday’s Org Work session (14th July - see slides) was dedicated to discussing autonomy issues that had been brought up by many Index Cooperative contributors.

Greg Docter and Felix Fang kicked-off the conversation by presenting slides that communicated how Set Labs understood the issues as brought forward by the community, after which Thomas Hepner moderated a Question & Answer session.

The big takeaway from the call was the need for a better understanding of the priority and requirement for greater Index Coop autonomy - and the need for better communication between key stakeholder groups. This could be enabled by standing up a cross-functional team made up of key stakeholders.

This group would support Index Coop mature towards a position of greater autonomy and preempt and address pain points in this transition process. The group would also identify and drive forward organizational/structural initiatives to help Index Coop and key partners to collaborate, coordinate and communicate more seamlessly going forward.

Initially, a major part of this effort could centre around an Autonomy Roadmap to be jointly created by all stakeholders (i.e. Index Coop contributors, Set Labs, DeFi Pulse, and other stakeholders).

Key Action: Formation of Autonomy Kick-Off Group by 27th of July.

Deliverable: Initial Autonomy Roadmap by 25th of August.

Recommendation: Recurring monthly forum post and “All-Hands” meeting led by the to-be-formed Autonomy Kick-Off Group for public accountability.

Group Structure: We propose that this group be made up of:

  • 3 Community Contributor Representatives (this includes contributors of all stripes, such as: contributors, community methodologists, prospective community methodologists, working group leads, full-time contributors)
  • 1 DeFi Pulse Representative
  • 1 Set Labs Representative

We believe that 5 people is the optimal number of individuals for this group, at least initially, to make rapid progress with representatives from each of the Index Coop’s core stakeholders (i.e. Set Labs, Pulse Inc, Index Coop contributors, outside investors).

The initial roadmap they produce will ultimately be subject to full community scrutiny in the forums.

Nomination Process:

  • Set Labs and DeFi Pulse will nominate their own representatives for the group and comment on the forum post who their nominee(s) are.
  • Community Contributors: Reply to this post to nominate yourself or other individual(s) for consideration.
  • Nomination Period: The nomination period will last from 12:00 PM (7:00 PM UTC) 16th of July to 12:00 PM (7:00 PM UTC) 21st of July.

Selection Process: A survey will be created for community voting on the representatives from each stakeholder group.

  • Voting Period: The voting period will last from 2:00 PM (9:00 PM UTC) 21st of July to 2:00 AM PST (9:00 AM UTC) 27 of July.


You can vote for nominations through:

Additional Reading and Resources:


  • 7/20/2021: The voting period was extended from 2:00 PM PST (9:00 PM UTC) 23 of July to 2:00 AM PST (9:00 AM UTC) 27 of July.
  • 7/21/2021: Links added for voting process.

I am nominating the following people for this group:

Set Labs: @dylan as he has both the Engineering and Community context to provide great insight into what Set Labs currently does so we can make rapid progress. In fact, I’d say he has already been doing much of the work from the Set side on Autonomy issues (i.e. Rebalancing and Treasury).

DeFi Pulse: @snasps as he actively participates in Community calls and has a long-term view of all that we can achieve together.

Community Contributors:

  • @fallow8 (aspiring Institutional Business co-Lead): Excellent commentary and perspective exhibited in Autonomy conversations, both on calls and on #set_autonomy_discord channels.
  • @Matthew_Graham: Treasury Working Group lead and aspiring External Methodologist (in collaboration with DFP).
  • @TenaciousTerrier (aspiring External Methodologist): I am nominating myself because of the positive feedback I received from folks on the Set Labs side and the Index Coop community side for leading and moderating the Autonomy conversations thus far.

I would also nominate @Kiba for his expertise with mechanism design if the Community really desires to expand the group beyond 5 individuals, but think that he or myself can represent the non-DFP External Methodologist interests.

1 Like

Would like to nominate @DarkForestCapital, @BigSky7 and @jdcook to represent the community on this. They have all been around and deep in the weeds for a long time and, I believe, have the necessary high-level context to move this conversation forward in a balanced and considerate manner.


Separately from the above, I would also like to see the period for nominations extended by 2 days. This is arguably one of the most important strategic conversations for the Coop, yet we are giving folks 4 days to nominate representatives, 2 of which are the weekend.

1 Like

@verto0912 The formation of this group does not do anything binding for the Index Cooperative. Any proposals or suggestions the group makes will ultimately have to be voted via IIPs.

I do not agree that the period for nominations should be extended. There have been multiple Autonomy meetings over the past two weeks and an active Discord channel for discussion. IIPs last for 3 days - the combined Nomination Process and Selection Process lasts for 4 days.

In my view, the Index Cooperative moves thoughtfully, but too slowly. We need to build the capacity to move both thoughtfully and aggressively. Both @gregdocter and myself agreed that this was a reasonable timeline for this process.

I disagree, but noted.

The current timeline leaves little time for nominations. There’s a reason we schedule IIPs for Monday and not over the weekend. Weekend IIPs have no engagement.


I hear you, @verto0912 - thank you for your input. I am willing to be flexible on this if other community members comment with similar concerns and would prefer what you are suggesting instead.

These are all excellent suggestions for potential candidates. I would also suggest you @verto0912 and @overanalyser.

We need 3 community members that represent a balance of different views across the coop. Both @BigSky7 and @jdcook have demonstrated a strong awareness of how fundamental our relationship is to set Set labs, and I believe it would be a mistake if that kind of voice was not represented in these discussions.


Let’s go direct to @setoshi, skip the middle man as Set Lab is majority owned by the founders who by extension control 28% of Index Coop. When push comes to shove, it boils down to a select few who control Set Labs.

I would echo a similar approach with DeFi Pulse. I know DeFi Pulse cares a lot about the future of Index Coop, beyond the monetary INDEX value. DeFi Pulse Index has DeFi Pulse in the name - so obvious reputation in is on the line when you put your name on the product.

I believe 5 people may not be enough, 7 is more reasonable in my honest opinion.

I personally want to nominate @verto0912 - I think the swiss army knife of Defi has an immense amount of value to add here.

My ideal group of candidates.


This conversation is evolving rapidly and I’m glad that it is going in a positive direction. I deeply respect and trust @verto0912 and @DarkForestCapital and know they will help guide this conversation in a productive direction.

As the founder of Set Labs and a tremendously valued member of our community @setoshi clearly needs to be part of this conversation.

@scott_lew_is is a major stakeholder. Without his support Index Coop would not be where it is today. As we craft a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with DeFi Pulse it is vital that we hear their perspective and recognize their concerns.

Finally - this conversation would greatly benefit from the inclusion of an outside party that has experience working with DAOs. 1kx is a major investor in both Set Labs and Index Coop- they have a strong incentive to see us succeed. Lasse Clausen or @pet3rpan are both highly respected member of the broader crypto community. Helping our community navigate these conversations would be a major value add and I believe will facilitate us reaching an equitable solution for all major stakeholders.


Great to see this moving forwards. I’d recommend these folks:


I suggest a balance between personalities and styles here - not three pure feisty folks for example. I hope votes will surface a nice balance of contributors here.

DeFi Pulse:

  • @scott_lew_is - if we want top brass from Set, we should seek the same from DFP


  • @setoshi - would add a lot of weight to this group and help fast info exchange and progress

I’m also open to @BigSky7 ’s suggestion of including folks from 1kx - Lasse, pet3rpan or other. If one person from 1kx is added, I think we need 4 members from the community, 1 from DFP, 1 from Set as well to make it a 7 person group.

If a 7 person group is too large and unwieldy, 5 person with 3 from community, 1 DFP, 1 Set seems right to me.


I appreciate the nominations and intend to focus on the Coop getting this right regardless of whether I’m in the group, because it’s vital.

One suggestion I’d like to make. That there be no more than one Full-time Contributor representing the Coop in this group. That might seem counterintuitive, but one of the opacity concerns I have is that there is (or was) a weekly meeting with Set and the full-timers where it seems there’s an extra level of candor or high-level decision making. Also, with Set holding the cards and each of these contributors having a vesting contract with the Coop, there’s an unavoidable dynamic that I know I’d have trouble preventing from creeping into my own perspective without significant effort to battle subconscious bias.

I want to be clear, this is not about individuals. Any one of @verto0912 @BigSky7 @DarkForestCapital @LemonadeAlpha belongs in this group as an individual. But given there’s very limited space and the topic at hand, I think it should be just one of them.


I wholeheartedly agree with this. I think there is a conflict of interest from having more than 1 FT contributor represented in the Autonomy group given that their compensation (i.e. Community Treasury funds) is effectively controlled by Set Labs.


Echoing what others have said here. I believe @setoshi and @scott_lew_is need to be stakeholders here.
I also think 5 members is sufficient.

My pick for community members:


This is an excellent point @fallow8 and if there are 3 community members in the group, I agree there should be 1 FT member maximum.

If there are 4 community members in the group im ok with 2 FT members being there.

Huge kreds and respect to the 4 current FT folks - they’re incredible! - but incentives and alignment do matter.


That’s a very solid group of folks IMO!

This makes sense. If we only have 1 FT contributor in the group, I would really love the other two community members to have cross-functional understanding of the Coop. I think it’s extremely important to have a grasp on different areas of our org to be able to add value here. With that in mind, would add @Pepperoni_Joe to the list of people that should be considered.


I would also agree with this comment from @verto0912 and think @Pepperoni_Joe a fantastic recommendation in terms of having potentially the best cross-functional view of things in the DAO

This topic is something I’ve been passionate about from day 1 at the Coop. Up until today I’ve been working very horizontally on the coop and coordinating with a lot of different working groups. With my engineering/startup founder/decentralisation maxi mindset and experience I know I will add a lot of value to this initiative.

I would like to recommend myself and @Pepperoni_Joe because I clearly see the same dynamic with him.

1 Like

Quick Sentiment Polls:

Would you prefer the 3 community members to have?
  • 0 Full-Time Contributors (i.e. All community members or Working Group Leaders)
  • 1 Full-Time Contributor
  • 2+ Full-Time Contributors

0 voters

Which group would you most prefer to form the Autonomy Kick-Off Group?

0 voters